Ex Parte Kumar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 1, 2018

11750716 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/750,716 05/18/2007 Ajith Kuttannair Kumar
91959 7590 10/03/2018
GE GPO- Transportation- The Small Patent Law Group
225 S. Meramec, Suite 725
St. Louis, MO 63105
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
204173-6 1603
EXAMINER
PATTON, SPENCERD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
Docket@splglaw.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
john.kramerl@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AJITH KUTT ANN AIR KUMAR and
WOLFGANG DAUM 1
Appeal 2018-000611
Application 11/750,716
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CAL VE, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
JAMES J. MAYBERRY,AdministrativePatentJudges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
fmally rejecting claims 38 and57-78. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction
under35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 General Electric Company is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 4.
Appeal 2018-000611
Application 11/750,716
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 38, 62, 64, and 65 are independent. Claim 38 is reproduced
below.
38. A control system for operating a vehicle,
compnsmg:
a mission optimizer on board the vehicle and configured
to determine a trip plan for a trip of the vehicle, the trip plan
comprising at least one of plural speed settings, plural power
settings, or plural throttle settings as a function of at least one of
time or distance of the vehicle along a route of the trip, based
on information of the vehicle and information of the route,
wherein the mission optimizer is configured to determine the
trip plan before the vehicle commences a trip along the route,
and wherein the mission optimizer is further configured to
output signals representative of the at least one of plural speed
settings, plural power settings, or plural throttle settings for
control of an engine system of the vehicle along the route;
a sensor on board the vehicle configured to collect
operational data of the vehicle, the operational data comprising
data of at least one of tractive effort or emissions actually
generated by the vehicle as the vehicle travels along the route;
and
a communication system on board the vehicle configured
to communicate the operational data to the mission optimizer;
wherein the mission optimizer is configured to change
the signals representative of the at least one of plural speed
settings, plural power settings, or plural throttle settings that are
output from the mission optimizer as the vehicle travels along
the route, based in part on the data of the at least one of tractive
effort or emissions actually generated by the vehicle;
wherein the at least one of plural speed settings, plural
power settings, or plural throttle settings are determined in part
based on emissions output.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2018-000611
Application 11/750,716
REJECTIONS
Claims 38, 57, 62---66, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, and 78 are rejected
under35 U.S.C. § 103(a)as unpatentableoverPudney(W003/097424Al;
pub. Nov. 27, 2003) and Kumar(US 2004/0133315 Al; pub. July 8, 2004).
Claims 58---61, 67, 70, 73, and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S. C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable overPudney, Kumar, and Matheson (US
5,794, 172; iss. Aug. 11, 1998).
ANALYSIS
Claims 38, 57, 62-66, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, and 78
Rejected Over Pudney and Kumar
Appellants present arguments for each of independent claim 38, 62,
64, and 65, but they do not argue the dependent claims separately. Appeal
Br. 8-16. We address the arguments for each independent claim, with the
dependent claims standing or falling with the respective independent claims.
See 37 C.F.R. §4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 38 (Dependent Claims 57, 68, and 69)
The Examiner finds that Pudney teaches a vehicle control system, as
recited in claim 38, with a mission optimizer that determines a trip plan with
at least one of plural speed, power, or throttle settings before the trip, but
does not determine the settings based on emissions output. Final Act. 2-3.
The Examiner relies on Kumar to teach optimizing performance including
power and speed based on fuel flow rate and emissions output. Id. at 3--4.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify
Pudney to sense vehicle emissions and determine speed, power, or throttle
settings based in part on the emissions output, as taught by Kumar, to
optimize speed and power while reducing harmful emissions. Id. at 4--5.
3
Appeal 2018-000611
Application 11/750,716
The Examiner's reasons for modifying Pudney' s vehicle optimizer to
control speed, power, or throttle settings based on emissions output is based
on a rational underpinning in view of Kumar's teaching of this feature. The
Examiner correctly fmds that Kumar optimizes performance such as power
and speed settings to reduce emissions. Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Kumar ,r 155).
The Examiner also fmds that Kumar optimizes fuel flow rate measured by
onboard sensors. Id. (citing Kumar,r,r 66, 79, 124, 135, Figs. 13, 16). The
Examiner reasonably concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Pudney to optimize speed, power, and throttle settings based in part on
emissions output, rather than fuel, to reduce emissions. Id. Kumar teaches
to optimize emissions "especially in cities or highly regulated regions" so
"it is possible to reduce emissions (smoke, Nitrogen Oxide, etc.) and trade
off other parameters like fuel efficiency." Kumar,r 155. The Examiner's
determination therefore is supported by a rational underpinning.
Appellants' arguments that "the Office Action fails to point to where
either Pudney or Kumar suggest such limitations" and "fails to address the
specific limitations of the claim" "wherein the at least one of plural speed
settings, plural power settings, or plural throttle settings are determined in
part based on emissions output" ( Appeal Br. 10-11) does not address the
Examiner's fmdings and determination as set forth in the Final Action and
discussed above. Appellants' argument that the rejection conflates fuel use
and emissions for determining settings (id. at 11-12) does not address the
Examiner's fmdings that Kumar teaches optimizing performance based on
fuel flow rate or emissions output as claimed (Final Act. 3--4). Nor does it
address the Examiner's reasoning that it would have been obvious to modify
Pudneyto reduce harmful emissions as Kumar teaches to do (id. at 4--5).
4
Appeal 2018-000611
Application 11/750,716
Appellants' arguments that the Office Action lacks concrete evidence
of teachings in the references and "seemingly acknowledges that neither
Pudney, nor Kumar describes, teaches, or suggests" determining settings
based on emissions output (Appeal Br. 13) is unpersuasive because they do
not address the Examiner's findings and rationale as presented in the Final
Action discussed above. Thus, they do not apprise us of Examiner error.
Appellants are correct that our previous Decision in this case ( mailed
Aug. 22, 2016) reversed a rejection of claim 3 8 over Pudney and Kumar.
Appeal Br. 10. However, that rejection of claim 3 8 relied on Pudney, not
Kumar, to optimize for emissions output. There, the Examiner reasoned that
Pudney optimizes for fuel use so it would have been obvious to optimize for
emissions output because fuel use and emissions are closely related. Dec. 6.
We did not sustain that rejection of claim 3 8 because the Examiner provided
no basis for finding that fuel use and emissions are closely related or that a
skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Pudney to optimize trip
settings based on emission based on Pudney's optimization for fuel use. Id.
The present rejection of claim 3 8 on this appeal relies on Kumar, not
Pudney, to teach optimization of vehicle settings based on emissions. Ans.
3--4. As discussed above, Kumar expressly teaches in paragraph 155 to do
so to reduce emissions in cities or highly regulated areas. Appellants have
not explained why the Examiner's reliance on Kumar (not Pudney) to teach
optimization of settings based in part on emissions output, as claimed, is in
error. Nor have Appellants explained why Kumar's teachings in this regard
would not have motivated a skilled artisan to optimize Pudney for emissions
as claimed. Thus, for all of the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claim 38 with dependent claims 57, 58, and 69 standing therewith.
5
Appeal 2018-000611
Application 11/750,716
Claims 62, 64, and 65 (Dependent Claims 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, and 78)
The Examiner again relies on Pudney to teach a trip optimizer that
determines a trip plan comprising at least one of plural speed settings, plural
power settings, or plural throttle settings and applies and adjusts the settings
to control the vehicle on a trip for fuel use but not emissions. Final Act. 5-7.
The Examiner again finds that Kumar optimizes such settings based on fuel
flow or emissions. Id. at 7-9. The Examiner again determines that it would
have been obvious to modify Pudney to control at least one of plural speed,
power, or throttle settings in part based on emissions, as Kumar teaches, to
reduce harmful emissions. Id. at 9-10 ( citing Kumar ,r 15 5).
Appellants' arguments that the "Office Action summarily concludes"
that it would have been obvious to modify Pudney to optimize for emissions
and "provides no citation, authority, or anything other than subjective
opinion to support [its] reasoning" (Appeal Br. 13-14) are not persuasive.
The Examiner correctly finds that Kumar teaches to sense parameters
to be controlled and Kumar also teaches to optimize emissions output. The
Examiner determines that Kumar measures fuel use when it is optimized, so
a skilled artisan similarly would have been motivated to measure emissions
using onboard sensors in order to optimize emissions output. Final Act. 10
(provides a closed loop control system); see In re Applied Materials, Inc.,
692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("A reference must be considered for
everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred
embodiment."); Bosch Auto. Serv. Solutions, LLC v. Mat al, 878 F. 3d 1027,
1035 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (same). Appellants' arguments do not address the
fmdings and determination of obvious by the Examiner and therefore do not
apprise us of Examiner error. See Appeal Br. 13-14.
6
Appeal 2018-000611
Application 11/750,716
The Examiner's obviousness rationale is based on Kumar's teaching
to use sensors to measure fuel flow and other settings to be optimized. Final
Act. 8-9 (citing Kumar,r,r 66, 79, 124, 135, Figs. 13, 16). Paragraph 79 of
Kumar teaches to use fuel level and fuel flow sensors to optimize fuel flow
rate for a trip. Paragraph 124 teaches to track fuel consumption information
to optimize fuel. Kumar teaches to input measured data such as horsepower,
fuel level, fuel usage, and tractive effort to trip optimization processor 1502.
Kumar,r 135, Figs. 13 (locomotive data 1214), 16 (locomotive data 1514).
Kumar further teaches that the sources of information and information flow
within the consist level and locomotive level include sensor/model inputs
and onboard optimization. Id. ,r,r 97, 99, 140, 141.
Thus, the Examiner had a sound basis for determining that a skilled
artisan would have been motivated to modify Pudney's system to optimize
for emissions output, as taught by Kumar, and to do so by sensing emissions
on board using sensor inputs where Kumar teaches to measure settings and
parameters to be controlled and optimized using onboard sensors and gives
an example of such a configuration for optimizing fuel use. Kumar then
teaches that this system can optimize emissions output, and the Examiner
reasonably concludes that such configuration would sense emissions output
using onboard sensors as Kumar does for other settings and parameters.
Appellants' other arguments, including the alleged conflation of fuel
and emissions ( Appeal Br. 14--15), have been addressed above and are not
persuasive for the same reasons because they misapprehend the rejection in
the Final Office Action in this appeal. For all of these reasons, we sustain
the rejection of claims 62, 64, and 65, with their respective dependent claims
71, 72, 74, 75, 77, and 78 standing therewith.
7
Appeal 2018-000611
Application 11/750,716
Claims 58-61, 67, 70, 73, and 76
Rejected Over Pudney, Kumar, and Matheson
Appellants argue that the proposed combination does not render
claims 58---61, 67, 70, 73, and 76 unpatentable at least for the reasons set
forth for independent claims 38, 62, 64, and 65 from which these claims
depend respectively. Appeal Br. 16. Because we sustain the rejections of
claims 38, 62, 64, and 65, this argument is not persuasive and we also
sustain the rejection of claims 58---61, 67, 70, 73, and 76.
DECISION
We affrrm the rejections of claims 38 and 57-78.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8